Obama's White House blasts release of secret Afghan war papers

The Obama White House is grappling with the release of secret materials that portray a stark look at the war in Afghanistan.

This archive of some 92,000 reports from January 2004 to December 2009 provides what The New York Times calls "an unvarnished, ground-level picture of the war in Afghanistan that is in many respects more grim than the official portrayal."

The Times, one of three publications granted an early look at the documents, also describes the documents as "a daily diary of an American-led force often starved for resources and attention as it struggled against an insurgency that grew larger, better coordinated and more deadly each year."

In a statement released Sunday, National Security Adviser Jim Jones condemned the disclosure of documents gathered by the website WikiLeaks.

"These irresponsible leaks will not impact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan; to defeat our common enemies; and to support the aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people," Jones said.

Jones pointed out that the documents pre-date the new Afghanistan strategy that Obama unveiled on Dec. 1, a plan developed "precisely because of the grave situation that had developed over several years." During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama criticized George W. Bush's administration for ignoring Afghanistan in pursuit of the war in Iraq.

"We know that serious challenges lie ahead, but if Afghanistan is permitted to slide backwards, we will again face a threat from violent extremist groups like al Qaeda who will have more space to plot and train," Jones said.

Jones also defended Pakistan, which is accused in some of the documents of assisting the insurgent Taliban. Jones said relations among the U.S., Pakistan, and Afghanistan have improved, and that the Pakistanis have "gone on the offensive against terrorists.

WikiLeaks, a website that specializes in classified documents, collected the Afghanistan papers, and provided an early look to The Times, the British newspaper The Guardian and the German magazine Der Spiegel on the condition that they not report on the material before Sunday. Today's coverage in The Times takes up five pages and contains numerous excerpts.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told the Times that the documents show "not only the severe incidents but the general squalor of war, from the death of individual children to major operations that kill hundreds."

Here is Jones' statement:

The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security. Wikileaks made no effort to contact us about these documents -- the United States government learned from news organizations that these documents would be posted. These irresponsible leaks will not impact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan; to defeat our common enemies; and to support the aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people.

The documents posted by Wikileaks reportedly cover a period of time from January 2004 to December 2009. On December 1, 2009, President Obama announced a new strategy with a substantial increase in resources for Afghanistan, and increased focus on al Qaeda and Taliban safe-havens in Pakistan, precisely because of the grave situation that had developed over several years. This shift in strategy addressed challenges in Afghanistan that were the subject of an exhaustive policy review last fall. We know that serious challenges lie ahead, but if Afghanistan is permitted to slide backwards, we will again face a threat from violent extremist groups like al Qaeda who will have more space to plot and train. That is why we are now focused on breaking the Taliban's momentum and building Afghan capacity so that the Afghan government can begin to assume responsibility for its future. The United States remains committed to a strong, stable, and prosperous Afghanistan.

Since 2009, the United States and Pakistan have deepened our important bilateral partnership. Counter-terrorism cooperation has led to significant blows against al Qaeda's leadership. The Pakistani military has gone on the offensive in Swat and South Waziristan, at great cost to the Pakistani military and people. The United States and Pakistan have also commenced a Strategic Dialogue, which has expanded cooperation on issues ranging from security to economic development. Pakistan and Afghanistan have also improved their bilateral ties, most recently through the completion of a Transit-Trade Agreement. Yet the Pakistani government -- and Pakistan's military and intelligence services -- must continue their strategic shift against insurgent groups. The balance must shift decisively against al Qaeda and its extremist allies. U.S. support for Pakistan will continue to be focused on building Pakistani capacity to root out violent extremist groups, while supporting the aspirations of the Pakistani people.

But for all their eye-popping details, the intelligence files, which are mostly collated by junior officers relying on informants and Afghan officials, fail to provide a convincing smoking gun for ISI complicity. Most of the reports are vague, filled with incongruent detail, or crudely fabricated. The same characters -- famous Taliban commanders, well-known ISI officials -- and scenarios repeatedly pop up. And few of the events predicted in the reports subsequently occurred.

A retired senior American officer said ground-level reports were considered to be a mixture of "rumours, bull---- and second-hand information" and were weeded out as they passed up the chain of command. "As someone who had to sift through thousands of these reports, I can say that the chances of finding any real information are pretty slim," said the officer, who has years of experience in the region.

If anything, the jumble of allegations highlights the perils of collecting accurate intelligence in a complex arena where all sides have an interest in distorting the truth.

In 1971, the release of once-classified documents about the Vietnam War -- known as the Pentagon Papers -- was one of the most influential events in the Nixon White House.

It led to a major Supreme Court case on freedom of the press. The papers helped plant the seeds of Watergate, as Richard Nixon's administration went after leaker Daniel Ellsberg and established the "plumbers" unit to plug news leaks. And they undercut support for the Vietnam War.

We'll keep up throughout the day on what is generated by the release of these Afghanistan war documents.

To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Approval ratings, 1945-present

About David Jackson

David's journalism career spans three decades, including coverage of five presidential elections, the Oklahoma City bombing, the 2000 Florida presidential recount and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He has covered the White House for USA TODAY since 2005. His interests include history, politics, books, movies and college football -- not necessarily in that order. More about David